Montero v. Times Transporation Co. Inc. (ESCAÑO)
G.R. No. 190828| March 16, 2015| Reyes, J.
PRESCRIPTION
PETITIONER: ONOFRE V. MONTERO et al.
RESPONDENTS: TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO.,INC et al.
SUMMARY
FACTS:
 Respondent Times Transportation Co., Inc., (TTCI) is a
company engaged in the business of land transportation for
passengers and goods serving the Ilocos Region to Metro
Manila route. TTCI employed the herein 21 petitioners as bus
drivers, conductors, mechanics, welders, security guards and
utility personnel.
 Employees of TTCI formed a union named as Times Employees
Union (TEU)..
 The sale of 25 buses of TTCI, as well as the Certificates of
Public Convenience for the operation of the buses, were likewise
approved and subsequently transferred to respondent Mencorp
Transport Systems, Inc., several union members received
notices that they were being retrenched effective 30 days from
September 16, 1997.
 TEU declared a strike against TTCI, but the latter merely
reiterated the earlier return-to-work order of the Labor Secretary.
For disregarding the said return-to-work order, Santiago issued
two notices of termination dated October 26, 1997 terminating
some 106 workers and a revised list dated November 24, 1997
increasing the number of dismissed employees to 119, for
participating in the illegal strike.
 On May 14, 1998, petitioners Estrañero, Pajarillo, Padre,
Avila, Avila, Jr., Tupasi, Cuenta, Dulay, Yago, and Aganon
filed several complaints against TTCI and MENCORP before
the NLRC. However, this case was withdrawn on March 4,
1999 upon motion by the TEU’s counsel which was given
due course on March 22, 1999.
 Four years later, several complaints for unfair labor
practice, illegal dismissal with money claims, damages and
attorney’s fees were filed against TTCI, Santiago, MENCORP
and its General Manager Virginia Mendoza, including the
latter’s husband Reynaldo Mendoza (collectively called the
respondents), before the LA from June to July 2002.
 TTCI asserted that the petitioners’ cause of action had already
been barred by prescription because the complaints were filed
only in June 2002 or after almost five years from the date of their
dismissal.
ISSUE/s:
WON petitioners’ complaints for illegal dismissal have already
prescribed.
RULING:
In the case at bar, October 26, 1997 and November 24, 1997 appear on
record to be the dates when the petitioners’ employment were
terminated by TTCI.
Article 1146 of the New Civil Code provides that an action predicated
upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, must be brought within four
years.
Prescriptive period continues even after the withdrawal of the case as
though no action has been filed at all. (ART 1115 OF NCC).
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation vs. Panganiban
Supreme Court held that although the commencement of an
action stops the running of the statute of prescription or limitations, its
dismissal or voluntary abandonment by plaintiff leaves the parties in
exactly the same position as though no action had been commenced at
all.
In the case at bar, filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal before the
LA interrupted the running of the prescriptive period, its voluntary
withdrawal left the petitioners in exactly the same position as though no
complaint had been filed at all. The withdrawal of their complaint
effectively erased the tolling of the reglementary period.
The running of the four-year prescriptive period not having been
interrupted by the filing of NLRC RAB-I-01-1007, the petitioners’
cause of action had already prescribed in four years after their
cessation of employment on October 26, 1997 and November 24,
1997.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 28, 2009 and Resolution
dated December 11, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
106260 are AFFIRMED.
DOCTRINE:
Article 1146 of the New Civil Code provides that an action predicated
upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, must be brought within four
years.
Prescriptive period continues even after the withdrawal of the case as
though no action has been filed at all. (ART 1115 OF NCC).